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: Daniel on 25 Sep 2009 16:10 On Sep 24, 8:10 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > AllYou! imagined: > > > Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> articulated: > >> Obviously. The towers didn't "fall" at all. They 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. > > Those two factors then combined to heat the steel bar joists > > to the point where it could not be disappated as it would if > > the fires were isolated, > > Why do you refuse to read, think or study the evidence? The only credible evidence contradicts your k00k theories. Why do YOU refuse to read, think, or study CREDIBLE evidence?
From: knews4u2chew on 25 Sep 2009 18:08 On Sep 25, 12:59 pm, Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. He doesn't debate. He smears. He obfuscates. He lies. He arm waves. He detracts. He distracts. He denies. He purposely confuses. He mis-attributes. He demands proof yet produces none.
From: P. Maffia on 25 Sep 2009 22:20 Hey Knews, Daniel's remarks were addressed to you not "All You" But for once you are right about something. The comments you made to Daniel do in fact apply to the idiot, you, that Daniel actually addresses his remarks to.. <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a944a40e-27d3-44ab-8338-f3c1f8ef529a(a)h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com... On Sep 25, 12:59 pm, Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. He doesn't debate. He smears. He obfuscates. He lies. He arm waves. He detracts. He distracts. He denies. He purposely confuses. He mis-attributes. He demands proof yet produces none.
From: knews4u2chew on 25 Sep 2009 22:46 On Sep 25, 7:20 pm, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...(a)centurytel.net> wrote: > Hey Knews, > > Daniel's remarks were addressed to you not "All You" > > But for once you are right about something. The comments you made to Daniel > do in fact apply to the idiot, you, that Daniel actually addresses his > remarks to.. > > <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:a944a40e-27d3-44ab-8338-f3c1f8ef529a(a)h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 25, 12:59 pm, Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > He doesn't debate. > He smears. > He obfuscates. > He lies. > He arm waves. > He detracts. > He distracts. > He denies. > He purposely confuses. > He mis-attributes. > He demands proof yet produces none. And you have to put your 2 cents worth of obfuscation in too. You are the same. Likely one of your nyms.
From: AllYou! on 26 Sep 2009 13:26
In news:92b59400-36ac-4097-8173-707ea9a1e20e(a)d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, Daniel <sabot120mm(a)hotmail.com> mused: > 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. You should feel even Stuuuupider for not being able to make a case for your poistion. |