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 27 Oct 2009 14:30 On Oct 27, 11:33 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Iarnrod wrote: > > On Oct 21, 6:31 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >> Al Dykes wrote: > >>> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>>> AllYou! wrote: > >>>>> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > >>>>>> And of course, no one used the words "molten steel" > >>>>>> in the quotes below, right nut job? Thanks for being > >>>>>> you (a nut job) makes my day even more fun.... <g> > >>>>>> "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". > >>>>> That's right > >>>> Here's your quote, nut job: > >>>> "Actually, all the quotes you've provided so far are that they > >>>> called it molten metal. Why would you now lie about that? > >>>> Still can't find the words "molten steel" in those quotes, > >>>> eh, nut job? Yes, you are quite clearly completely insane. > >>>> Thanks for proving my point so convincingly. <vbg> > >> Can you find the words "molten steel". > > Can you > > They're in both of the quotes, nut job... <chuckle> Hankie the Self-Admitted Failure as a Fired Janitor "thinks" the words "I saw" will magically appear in his cites if he just snips them! It must be this kind of thinking that resulted in him being fired as a janitor. Hankie, paste right here the quotes in which you "think" the words "I saw molten steel" appear-----> <chuckle>
From: Iarnrod on 27 Oct 2009 14:33
On Oct 27, 11:34 am, Hankie the Self Admitted Fired Janitor lied: > Iarnrod dragged the Self Admitted Fired janitor into her Famous Woodshed of Truth: > > > Henry foamed impotently: > >> 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, No, they are right and they agree with me. They disagree with you, explicitly. You "think" they say there was *no* damage yet what they say is that there *was* damage even though it was not a significant contributor to the collapse. Learn the difference, Hankie. You might not have been fired from your janitor job if you were smarter. |