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 28 Sep 2009 15:26 In news:h9r115$d6v$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Daniel wrote: >> On Sep 24, 8:10 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>> Why do you refuse to read, think or study the evidence? > >> The only credible evidence contradicts your k00k theories. > > Let us know what you're disputing from the write > up below. It proves that fires couldn't have caused > the free fall and symmetric drop of WTC7's hurricane > and earth quake resistant steel frame. > > > The demolitions shown in the video below both display all > the characteristics of controlled demolition, When has a modern, controlled demolition ever produced "molten steel that flowed like a river"?
From: Al Dykes on 28 Sep 2009 15:55 In article <h9r0t1$d6v$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Daniel wrote: >> On Sep 23, 3:49 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>> And even there had been, it couldn't have melted the steel, > >> It didn't melt the steel, and it didn't have to. > > We know the fires didn't melt the steel. Only thermite >explains it. > >> Get back to us once >> you have some credible sources to back up your claims. > > Since you agree that the fires couldn't have produced >the molten metal, what claim are you disputing? > > > Here are two of our 9-11 rescue heroes who observed molten metal >"flowing like lava - like a "foundry" Absolutely no quote is first-hand. All are second hand. In the absense of any physical evidence and science that shows how the temps in the pile could be maintained for weeks, the second-hand accounts are explained by metaphor and hyperbole. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: AllYou! on 28 Sep 2009 16:38 In news:h9r18a$e0k$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Ironhead amused its many betters with: > >> There was no molten steel > > So, you're saying that the first responders are deluded > kook and liars, and that the videos of WCT2's demolition > are all faked? Are you insane? Rhetorcial, BTW, look it > up.... <chuckle> The claim is that there was no molten steel, not that there wasn't any molten metal. You seem to have a terrible time distiguishing between the two.
From: AllYou! on 28 Sep 2009 16:45 In news:h9r1bm$e0k$8(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> In news:h9dqiq$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, QED that you're a whacko, as defined by you. Do you see it? You defined a whacko as one who insults rather than debates. Of course, another trait of the whacko is to claim that an insult really isn't an insult. Just like molten metal is really just molten steel, and just like there has never been a controlled demolition in modern history that has ever left a river-like quantity of molten steel. > 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... They mean that the case has been made beyond any doubt that you can keep waving your arms all you want that the WTC towers "exploded" (even though they actually imploded), and that the whole building "disintegrated" (even though it took months to clean ground zero of all of the allegedly "disintegrated" debris), but it doesn't mean that your hand waving is true. It just means that it makes you look rather silly. > ...is actually just sagging due to gradual softening of a few > steel columns? The "sagging" occurred with the laterally supporting bar joists, not the columns. Columns are vertical members, and so they do not "sag". In this case, they failed inwardly. You really don't know a thing about metallurgy, or mechanics, do you.
From: Iarnrod on 28 Sep 2009 16:47
On Sep 28, 12:56 pm, Henry embarrassed his janitor collegues <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > We know the fires didn't melt the steel. Only thermite > explains it. Sorry, Hankie the Bottle Washer, but it is physically impossible for your cartoon magic invisible and smokeless "thermite" to produce the collapses that occurred on 9/11. Simply, could not have happened any other way than the official findings determined. |