Prev: Intermediate Accounting 12th and 13th edition Kieso Weygandt
Next: JSH: Back to conic section parameterization result
From: Iarnrod on 28 Sep 2009 16:48
On Sep 28, 12:58 pm, Hank the Janitor Bottle Washer provided more easy
fodder for his many betters to debunk:

>   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.

A) It was not free fall, nor anything close to it.

B) It was not symmetrical.

Other than that, Hankie, you're batting 0.000.
From: AllYou! on 28 Sep 2009 16:49
In news:h9r1cn$e0k$9(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu,
Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused:
> 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?

I have, and the evidence is quite clear that what I've said is true.


> The fires were isolated.

Define isolated.

> Not only were they oxygen starved
> with few emergent flames, and limited to just a few floors,

The fires only had to be present on one floor, and it was. The
fires would have been much worse had their been more oxygen, but
there was quite enough to do the job. Just look at the giant holes
in the building. Do you think "any" oxygen could get in there?


So when will you ever tell us when, in modern history, has a
controlled demolition ever resulted in rivers of molten steel?


From: AZ Nomad on 28 Sep 2009 16:50
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:58:45 -0400, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote:
>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, and none of
>fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11

The only characteristic of controlled demolition displayed was that
the buildings fell down. They displayed *none* of the other
characteristics of controlled demolition while they displayed *all*
of the characteristics of fire induced structural failure.

From: Iarnrod on 28 Sep 2009 16:53
On Sep 28, 1:04 pm, Henry the Delusional Kook <9-11tr...(a)experts.org>
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

Just out of curiosity, what drugs do you have to ingest to hallucinate
in such a manner? <snicker>

From: Iarnrod on 29 Sep 2009 11:19
On Sep 29, 7:18 am, Hankie the Janitor Who Sniffed One Too Many
Chemical Beakers <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote:
> Iarnrod schooled Hankie once again with the proven truth:
>
> > Hankie the Bottle Washer
>
>   I am deluded and confused.

That's for sure, Hankie! Stop sniffing the leftovers when you go in
for you night shift to clean up after your many betters,

>   The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
> the  characteristics of controlled demolition,

Bzzzzzztttt!! Wrong. In your utter drunken stupidity you fail to
notice that not one single controlled demolition ever performed by man
ever looked like the fire-and-crash induced structrual failure
collapses of the WTC buildings. Not one. Starting with the FACT proven
that there are no explosives in use. Nor any of your cartoon magic
"thermite" that violates the laws of physics.

> and none of fire induced failure,

Correction: ALL

>   Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
> if so, what and why.

Well, of course, all sensient human beings with anything more than a
brain stem (which leaves you out) disagree because your entire
position is based on false premises and complete misunderstanding of
the laws of physics. IOW, what you suggest is actually proven to be
physically impossible.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Prev: Intermediate Accounting 12th and 13th edition Kieso Weygandt
Next: JSH: Back to conic section parameterization result