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 21:14 In news:736b930d-035f-41b2-a3c7-69a81178cdf2(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Sep 24, 5:50 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Innews:h9fp3n$i8r$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: >> >>> AllYou! wrote: >>>> Henry <9-11tr...(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_Pour... >> >> 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-Disinfo... >> >> 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? > > Unlimited black-ops funding. IOW, you're sure that it was some sort of gubament conspiracy, but that it was all done by a form of black majic that you can't begin to explain. And that's a more plausible theory than anything else you've seen? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,
From: AllYou! on 24 Sep 2009 21:15 In news:h9g603$13e$1(a)panix5.panix.com, Al Dykes <adykes(a)panix.com> mused: > In article > <736b930d-035f-41b2-a3c7-69a81178cdf2(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Sep 24, 5:50=A0am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >>> Innews:h9fp3n$i8r$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >>> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: >>> >>>> AllYou! wrote: >>>>> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: >>> >>>>> =A0Also, molten aluminum appears silvery, not bright >>>>>> red/orange/yellow. >>> >>>>> :-) =A0 Cold aluminum appears silvery. =A0Molten aluminum, >>>>> just like most metals, turns red, then orange, then white. >>> >>>> =A0So many stupid, easily debunked conspiracy kook lies >>>> - so little time.... >>> >>>> http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Molten_Aluminum_Pour... >>> >>> 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? =A0Please 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". =A0Either you can do that, or you cannot. >>> >>>> http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/Glowing-Aluminum-Disinfo... >>> >>> As those pictures show, when alluminum gets hot enough to >>> flow, it gets white, not silvery. =A0So 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? >> >> Unlimited black-ops funding. >> Computers. >> Wireless detonators. > > "Wireless detonators" ???? > > The antennas on the north tower had multiple 50,000 wat signals. > The > US Army demolition manual has a chart that says to stay 3,000 > meters > away from a single 50Kw transmitter. The entire WTC site was > within 4,000 meters of that antenna. Well Duh! Tha't all part of the plot!
From: Daniel on 25 Sep 2009 15:59 On Sep 23, 12:03 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:8b7cdcff-34da-4a5f-badd-38f139e7b31e(a)s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, > Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: > > > > > > > On Sep 23, 11:44 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > >> Innews:c2e521a0-ce71-446a-ba2a-a9820b1900e1(a)d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, > >> Daniel <sabot12...(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. > > > If that were true, there would likely have been no collapses. > > Why do > > you ignore two jetliners crashing into the buildings at 500+ MPH? > > I'm not ignoring the fact that two jetliners crashed into the WTC. > I'm citing the fact that the WTC towers continued to stand well > after they absorbed the IMPACTS of those crashes as evidence that > the towers withstood the FORCE of those impacts. The craches > eventually lead to the collapse of the towers, but it had nothing to > do with the FORCE of the impacts. Your ignorance is stupefying. I feel stupider for attempting to debate with you.
From: Daniel on 25 Sep 2009 16:07 On Sep 23, 3:42 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Sep 23, 8:45 am, Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > 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? > > Try and slow down an open air petroleum fire. > It spills spreads everywhere while vaporizing in the air while > burning. > In the south tower hit most of the fuel can be seen burning on impact > as the plane goes through the corner section. Cite? Give us the specific amount of fuel that burned on impact, and provide credible cites. > Hardly any jet fuel was left to burn. Again, You're going to have to provide a credible cite.
From: Daniel on 25 Sep 2009 16:08
On Sep 23, 3:49 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > On Sep 23, 8:45 am, Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sep 22, 2:05 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>> Most of the fuel burned off in minutes. > >> 5,000 gallons of jet fuel burned off in "minutes"? Cite? > > Try and slow down an open air petroleum fire. > > It spills spreads everywhere while vaporizing in the air while > > burning. > > In the south tower hit most of the fuel can be seen burning on impact > > as the plane goes through the corner section. > > Hardly any jet fuel was left to burn. > > And even there had been, it couldn't have melted the steel, It didn't melt the steel, and it didn't have to. Get back to us once you have some credible sources to back up your claims. |