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: knews4u2chew on 29 Sep 2009 13:41 On Sep 29, 8:19 am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. Got anything besides your usual ad hominem and arm waving? I didn't think so. You are a loser from the get go. You are blind. You wouldn't know reality if it walked up and bit you. You think everyone is more ignorant than you and will eat up your swill. Wrong. You lie. The government lies. You lose. EVERY news caster including Peter Jennings in the first minutes after the "collapse" recognized and commented that "one would have to get at the under infrastructure of the buildings to have such a collapse resembling so many other controlled demolitions they have seen." http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5061514770009171572# That was until their handlers and the liars behind them fed them the government lies to broadcast. "Bid laden, Bin laden, Bin laden!!!
From: knews4u2chew on 29 Sep 2009 14:29 On Sep 25, 1:07 pm, Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. Use your eyes. Or do an experiment. Try burning only "part" of a fuel spill.
From: Iarnrod on 29 Sep 2009 16:30 On Sep 29, 9:45 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: > > > "I am deluded and confused." was written by Hankie. > > Which, of course, is why I'm so comically and > pitifully incapable of defending my insane cartoon > fairy tale fantasies... <chuckle> We know, Hankie. We wiped the floor with you two years ago and we're doing it again. You might lose your janitor job soon! Nothing you assert is actually physically possible. You know that, don't you?
From: Iarnrod on 29 Sep 2009 16:42 On Sep 29, 12:29 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Sep 25, 1:07 pm, Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Use your eyes. Oooops! Don't do that, KKKooker! If you actually looked for a change you'd see there are no CD explosives going off!! No cartoon magic thermite either!! OOOOOOOPPPPSSS!!! There goes your precious little physically impossible theory!
From: Al Dykes on 29 Sep 2009 17:09
In article <932a90d0-d4bc-4397-ae29-5da82c5fba94(a)12g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sep 29, 8:19=A0am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Sep 29, 7:18=A0am, 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 >> >> > =A0 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, >> >> > =A0 The demolitions shown in the video below both display all >> > the =A0characteristics 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 >> >> > =A0 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. > >Got anything besides your usual ad hominem and arm waving? >I didn't think so. >You are a loser from the get go. >You are blind. >You wouldn't know reality if it walked up and bit you. >You think everyone is more ignorant than you and will eat up your >swill. >Wrong. >You lie. >The government lies. >You lose. >EVERY news caster including Peter Jennings in the first minutes after >the "collapse" recognized and commented that "one would have to get at >the under infrastructure of the buildings to have such a collapse >resembling so many other controlled demolitions they have seen." "one would have to" is hypothetical. Jennings doesn't believe or claim that man-made explosives were used. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail |