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 23 Sep 2009 07:34 In news:1a6df0f5-5cd5-45cf-b96a-6711d335b8cd(a)m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Sep 22, 1:56 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Innews:h9b7lt$99g$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: >> >>> The deluded conspiracy theorist cited by Dykes blamed >>> the explosive disintegration of the towers on jet fuel. >> >> Yeah. If it wasn't for the jet fuel that ignited theereby >> setting off the other fires, the steel would never have heated >> to then weaken enough to fail. > > http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm > http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm > http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm > http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm And none of those links address the issue that I posed. That makes you a liar.
From: Daniel on 23 Sep 2009 11:40 On Sep 22, 9:11 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:10443fff-08dd-47ea-9c76-a31046895d1d(a)e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, > Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: > > > > > > > On Sep 21, 5:53 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > >> Innews:67e45db0-9aa7-4809-acc6-cd905ceec9f3(a)d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, > >> Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: > > >>> On Sep 21, 11:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > >>>> Innews:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, > >>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > >>>>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern > >>>>>> 757 and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel > >>>>>> instrument approach to LGA going off course at low approach > >>>>>> speed hitting the building, not fully-laden and fueled > >>>>>> heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference. > > >>>>> Doesn't matter. > >>>>> "Multiple jet hits." > > >>>> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. They > >>>> fell due to the fires from which structural steel is supposed > >>>> to be insulated. > > >>> REALLY? So you want to stand on your claim that the planes > >>> crashing into the towers had NOTHING to do with their collapse? > > >> Where did I ever claim such a ridiculous thing? > > > In your previous post. > > As the words I used in my prvious post prove, I never said any such > rediculous thing. So either you're too stupid to understand plain > English, or you're a liar. Your choice. > > >> It's no wonder > >> you're so confused. You obviously can't understand simple > >> English! The designer was talking about how the towers were > >> designed to withstand the force of the hit, and not to whatever > >> else might result from a plane crash. > > > How could the designer design the building to withstand impacts > > from planes that hadn't even been designed? > > Designers design buildings to withstand the force of impact from > planes, and this one did that, and did it well because the towers > didn't collapse due to the force of the impact of the planes. They > collapsed from being weakened due to the fires which resulted from > the plane crashes. All these designers ever said is that the > buildings were designed to withstand the force due to the impact of > planes. > > Now, either you're more interested in playing word games than in an > honest debate, or you're pretty stuuuupid. What will it be? You're the one discounting the impact of the aircraft in the building failure, not me or any other intelligent person on this planet.
From: Daniel on 23 Sep 2009 11:42 On Sep 22, 1:43 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Daniel wrote: > > There is not ONE BIT of evidence of explosives being used > > http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html > > Quotes from witnesses to the demolition: > > It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see > professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and > then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because > I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I > saw the building coming down. THIS is your "proof"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
From: Daniel on 23 Sep 2009 11:45 On Sep 22, 2:05 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Al Dykes wrote: > > Henry Guthard, engineer and one of Yamasaki's [WTC designer] > > original partners who also worked as the project manager at the > > [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces > > come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To > > defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of > > 1350 feet is just not possible. > > Most of the fuel burned off in minutes. 5,000 gallons of jet fuel burned off in "minutes"? Cite?
From: AllYou! on 23 Sep 2009 11:44
In news:c2e521a0-ce71-446a-ba2a-a9820b1900e1(a)d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, Daniel <sabot120mm(a)hotmail.com> mused: > On Sep 22, 9:11 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Innews:10443fff-08dd-47ea-9c76-a31046895d1d(a)e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, >> Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Sep 21, 5:53 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >>>> Innews:67e45db0-9aa7-4809-acc6-cd905ceec9f3(a)d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, >>>> Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: >> >>>>> On Sep 21, 11:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >>>>>> Innews:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, >>>>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: >> >>>>>>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern >>>>>>>> 757 and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel >>>>>>>> instrument approach to LGA going off course at low >>>>>>>> approach speed hitting the building, not fully-laden and >>>>>>>> fueled heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG >>>>>>>> difference. >> >>>>>>> Doesn't matter. >>>>>>> "Multiple jet hits." >> >>>>>> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. >>>>>> They fell due to the fires from which structural steel is >>>>>> supposed to be insulated. >> >>>>> REALLY? So you want to stand on your claim that the planes >>>>> crashing into the towers had NOTHING to do with their >>>>> collapse? >> >>>> Where did I ever claim such a ridiculous thing? >> >>> In your previous post. >> >> As the words I used in my prvious post prove, I never said any >> such rediculous thing. So either you're too stupid to >> understand plain English, or you're a liar. Your choice. >> >>>> It's no wonder >>>> you're so confused. You obviously can't understand simple >>>> English! The designer was talking about how the towers were >>>> designed to withstand the force of the hit, and not to >>>> whatever else might result from a plane crash. >> >>> How could the designer design the building to withstand impacts >>> from planes that hadn't even been designed? >> >> Designers design buildings to withstand the force of impact from >> planes, and this one did that, and did it well because the >> towers didn't collapse due to the force of the impact of the >> planes. They collapsed from being weakened due to the fires >> which resulted from the plane crashes. All these designers ever >> said is that the buildings were designed to withstand the force >> due to the impact of planes. >> >> Now, either you're more interested in playing word games than >> in an honest debate, or you're pretty stuuuupid. What will it >> be? > > You're the one discounting the impact of the aircraft in the > building failure, not me or any other intelligent person on this > planet. "the force" of the impact was easily withstood. Not the fact that the plane crashed into the WTC. I guess you've made your choice. |