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: I'm Not Here on 26 Sep 2009 19:53 "The Terminator" <kirbg1(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sep 22, 6:32 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> 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. >> > > "knews" - you one wacko conspiracy nut for sure ! Not as wacko as David Icke, but close. Icke argues that reptilian, shape-shifting extraterrestrial humanoids are responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to Icke, a reptilian global elite is behind all things that occur in the world. According to Phoenix New Times, "Icke is part of a virulent strain of anti-Semitism that runs throughout the 9/11 conspiracy crowd." > http://www.911myths.com/ > http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths > http://www.answers.com/topic/debunking-9-11-myths > http://www.debunk911myths.org/ > http://www.slate.com/id/2088092/ > http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/15881... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777 > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/... > http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory > http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/
From: AllYou! on 28 Sep 2009 07:28 In news:e78182ab-1697-4931-a40e-c41853b1df03(a)z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, Daniel <sabot120mm(a)hotmail.com> mused: > Cite? Give us the specific amount of fuel that burned on impact, > and provide credible cites. Please provide one credible cite wherein any credible engineer claims that the FORCE of the impact of the planes on the WTC was the only cause for their collapse. I know that you're horribly confused about the difference between how the crash of the planes on the WTC were the reason for their fall, vs how the force of the impact of the planes was the only reason for why they fell, so as you do your search for such a credible cite, make sure that you read through it so that the words actually say that the only reason that the towers fell was due to the FORCE which the planes exerted upon the WTC as they crashed into them.
From: Henry on 28 Sep 2009 15:04 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? -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 28 Sep 2009 15:04 AllYou! imagined: > Henry <9-11truth(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 fires were isolated. Not only were they oxygen starved with few emergent flames, and limited to just a few floors, but in the south tower, they didn't even reach a large portion of the few floors where they were present. As always, here's shard proof. BTW, it's hard not to notice that you have provided exactly zero evidence or research to support your impossible cartoon fantasies. It's all based on your own personal blind faith and ignorance. Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South Tower. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html Notice that the corners are curved, as the block's internal destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed through demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo evidence. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength, fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building was not damaged by fire or impact, the weight above them is greatly reduced. Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with reduced weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as the fire and impact damaged side that has most of the weight of the rotating block on it? Seems more than a little odd, doesn't it? Here's some information on the perimeter columns. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html Now watch this video: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/wtc-2_explodes.avi That's not gradual bending and buckling of an over heated steel frame. Those are huge explosions not unlike those we see in a controlled demolition. Keep in mind that this is at the onset of the collapse, so nothing is falling quickly at this point. -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: AllYou! on 28 Sep 2009 15:24
In news:h9r0t1$d6v$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Daniel wrote: >> On Sep 23, 3:49 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>> And even there had been, it couldn't have melted the steel, > >> It didn't melt the steel, and it didn't have to. > > We know the fires didn't melt the steel. Only thermite > explains it. You have no hard evidence of melted steel, nor do you have any examples of where in the modern world any controlled demolition has ever produced molten steel. The only anecdotal evidence you have is that someone thinks they saw "molten metal", which could easily have resulted from the tons of aluminum and other soft metals that were present on and in the planes, as well as tons and tones of other soft metals located in the buildings. >> Get back to us once >> you have some credible sources to back up your claims. > > Since you agree that the fires couldn't have produced > the molten metal, what claim are you disputing? I think you continue to be horribly confused between the terms "molten metal" (of which there is some hair brained, anecdotal evidence, but for which there is no hard evidence), and "molten steel" (of which there is no evidence at all). > Here are two of our 9-11 rescue heroes who observed molten metal > "flowing like lava - like a "foundry" Key words "metal", not "steel". Are you under the impression that all metal is steel? My son used to think that all meat was chicken, but he was five when he figured it out. |