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 24 Sep 2009 08:35 In news:h9fooh$htv$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> In news:h9dqiq$qm1$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> AllYou! wrote: >>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > >>>>> They are exploding and disintegrating. > >>>> By your own standard, you're proving that you're a whacko. > >>> So says the deluded nut job who has obviously never >>> even watched a video of the demolitions. Only on usenut. >>> The towers quite literally exploded and disintegrated in >>> a matter of seconds. Why do you refuse to read, think, view >>> the evidence or study the expert research? Mindlessly parroting >>> government lies and propagandas makes you look extremely >>> foolish and gullible. > >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfoXbyffso&feature=related > >> Q. E. D. > > In your state of delusion, From your earlier posts: "OTOH, ask a whack job to defend or explain its beliefs, and the whack job becomes offended, uncomfortable, and irrational, and its "thought" process pretty much shuts down." "The whack job, rather than defend its beliefs with evidence, research, or logic, will do one of several things - change the subject, shamefully run away confused and frustrated, or "attack" the person who's challenged its beliefs with childishly comical "insults", such as "You're a communist", "You're a janitor", "Your mother smokes crack", "You're a desperate, squirming, evasive, poor loser", etc.. What the whack job is pitifully and comically incapable of doing, is engaging in a calm, rational, open, and honest dialog of the relevant facts, research, and evidence. Let's give it a go, shall we? This little experiment is usually quite revealing - and fun - unless, of course, you happen to be a deluded and confused whack job.... <vbg>" Well, I've given it a go, and as your responses have shown, and as your failure to answer any reasonable questions has also shown, by your standard, you're a whack job. Q.E.D.
From: Henry on 24 Sep 2009 08:37 AllYou! wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Also, molten aluminum appears silvery, not bright >> red/orange/yellow. > :-) Cold aluminum appears silvery. Molten aluminum, just like > most metals, turns red, then orange, then white. So many stupid, easily debunked conspiracy kook lies - so little time.... http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Molten_Aluminum_Poured_onto_Rusty_Steel_by_Wes_Lifferth.pdf http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/Glowing-Aluminum-Disinformation-by-brian-vasquez.pdf > You reAlly ARE making a fool of yourself now. Yet of course, as always, it's *you* who has nothing but your own ignorance, delusions, blind faith, and stupidity to "support" your reality defying conspiracy nut job kook drivel... <chuckle> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: AllYou! on 24 Sep 2009 08:50 In news:h9fp3n$i8r$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > >> Also, molten aluminum appears silvery, not bright >>> red/orange/yellow. > >> :-) Cold aluminum appears silvery. Molten aluminum, just like >> most metals, turns red, then orange, then white. > > So many stupid, easily debunked conspiracy kook lies > - so little time.... > > http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Molten_Aluminum_Poured_onto_Rusty_Steel_by_Wes_Lifferth.pdf So now, it's your claim that you know that the molten metal was not aluminum, or any other soft metal, because you have hard evidence that it was silver, and that it was poured onto rusty steel? Please provide the hard evidence for those assertions about the specific conditions at the WTC site. And while you're at it, and as I've asked you many times in the past, please provide har evidence for how any modern controlled demolition has ever resulted in "pools of motlen metal flowing like a river". Either you can do that, or you cannot. > http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/Glowing-Aluminum-Disinformation-by-brian-vasquez.pdf As those pictures show, when alluminum gets hot enough to flow, it gets white, not silvery. So why would you provide hard evidence that provess your assertions to be totally bogus? How long do you think those charges, and all the associated wiring, could be kept hidden from all of the maintenance and construction people who regularly service the mechanicals in those areas? And how many such explosive charges would be required to do the job? And how much wiring would be required? And how would you connect all of those wires from all of the different floors just though the ceilings? And how would those explosives cause the columns to buckle inward, especially if the lateral bar joists as not also demolished? And why would the only buckling happen right at where the planes creased? And how many people would be required to design, plan, and execute such an installation, and what are the chances that all of them, ALL of them, keep the mouths shut?
From: Henry on 24 Sep 2009 09:27 AllYou! wrote: > In news:h9fooh$htv$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> AllYou! wrote: >>> In news:h9dqiq$qm1$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>>> AllYou! wrote: >>>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>>>>> They are exploding and disintegrating. >>>>> By your own standard, you're proving that you're a whacko. >>>> So says the deluded nut job who has obviously never >>>> even watched a video of the demolitions. Only on usenut. >>>> The towers quite literally exploded and disintegrated in >>>> a matter of seconds. Why do you refuse to read, think, view >>>> the evidence or study the expert research? Mindlessly parroting >>>> government lies and propagandas makes you look extremely >>>> foolish and gullible. >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfoXbyffso&feature=related >>> Q. E. D. >> In your state of delusion, do those three letters "explain" >> why you "think" that a building that is quite clearly and beyond >> any doubt exploding and disintegrating with such incredible force >> that it's ejecting huge steel columns laterally for hundreds of >> feet in all directions... >> >> http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/expulsion.html >> >> and pulverizing thousands of tons of concrete into fine dust... >> >> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html >> >> ...is actually just sagging due to gradual softening of a few steel columns? > From your earlier posts: > "OTOH, ask a whack job to defend or explain its beliefs, and > the whack job becomes offended, uncomfortable, and irrational, > and its "thought" process pretty much shuts down." > "The whack job, > rather than defend its beliefs with evidence, research, or > logic, will do one of several things - change the subject, > shamefully run away confused and frustrated, or "attack" > the person who's challenged its beliefs with childishly comical > "insults", such as "You're a communist", "You're a janitor", > "Your mother smokes crack", "You're a desperate, squirming, > evasive, poor loser", etc.. > What the whack job is pitifully and comically incapable of doing, > is engaging in a calm, rational, open, and honest dialog of the > relevant facts, research, and evidence. > Let's give it a go, shall we? This little experiment is usually > quite revealing - and fun - unless, of course, you happen to be > a deluded and confused whack job.... <vbg>" > Well, I've given it a go And of course, you were unable to defend your beliefs with any evidence, research, or logic. Thanks for proving my point... <chuckle> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: AllYou! on 24 Sep 2009 09:41
In news:h9fs1v$mql$3(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >>> In your state of delusion, do those three letters "explain" >>> why you "think" that a building that is quite clearly and >>> beyond any doubt exploding and disintegrating with such >>> incredible >>> force that it's ejecting huge steel columns laterally for >>> hundreds of >>> feet in all directions... >>> >>> http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/expulsion.html >>> >>> and pulverizing thousands of tons of concrete into fine dust... >>> >>> >>> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html >>> >>> ...is actually just sagging due to gradual softening of a few >>> steel columns? > > >> From your earlier posts: > >> "OTOH, ask a whack job to defend or explain its beliefs, and >> the whack job becomes offended, uncomfortable, and irrational, >> and its "thought" process pretty much shuts down." > > >> "The whack job, >> rather than defend its beliefs with evidence, research, or >> logic, will do one of several things - change the subject, >> shamefully run away confused and frustrated, or "attack" >> the person who's challenged its beliefs with childishly comical >> "insults", such as "You're a communist", "You're a janitor", >> "Your mother smokes crack", "You're a desperate, squirming, >> evasive, poor loser", etc.. >> What the whack job is pitifully and comically incapable of >> doing, is engaging in a calm, rational, open, and honest dialog >> of the relevant facts, research, and evidence. >> Let's give it a go, shall we? This little experiment is >> usually quite revealing - and fun - unless, of course, you >> happen to be a deluded and confused whack job.... <vbg>" > >> Well, I've given it a go > > And of course, you were unable to defend your beliefs with > any evidence, research, or logic. Thanks for proving my > point... <chuckle> I'm sure you feel that way, despite the record of how I've answered every one of your questions, and you've yet to answer the simplest of mine. For instance, you've yet to provide any evidence that modern, contolled demolitions ever result in large pools of molten steel that flow like rivers. Also, how long do you think those charges, and all the associated wiring, could be kept hidden from all of the maintenance and construction people who regularly service the mechanicals in those areas? And how many such explosive charges would be required to do the job? And how much wiring would be required? And how would you connect all of those wires from all of the different floors just though the ceilings? And how would those explosives cause the columns to buckle inward, especially if the lateral bar joists as not also demolished? And why would the only buckling happen right at where the planes creased? And how many people would be required to design, plan, and execute such an installation, and what are the chances that all of them, ALL of them, keep the mouths shut? |