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 29 Sep 2009 21:59 In news:h9t1d4$9jq$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Ironhead amused its many betters with: > >> Sorry > > You are indeed. > >> Hankie the Bottle Washer > > You're still deluded and confused. > > > The demolitions shown in the video below both display all > the characteristics of controlled demolition, Show us one instance of where a controlled demolition ever resulted in molten steel that flowed like a river.
From: Iarnrod on 29 Sep 2009 22:02 On Sep 29, 7:59 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:h9t1d4$9jq$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > > > Ironhead amused its many betters with: > > >> Sorry > > > You are indeed. > > >> Hankie the Bottle Washer > > > You're still deluded and confused. > > > The demolitions shown in the video below both display all > > the characteristics of controlled demolition, > > Show us one instance of where a controlled demolition ever resulted > in molten steel that flowed like a river. Which of course begs the question that there was NO molten steel at all at the WTC. That's the thing with kookers... not only do they make up the explanations, they mismatch the attributes of their delusions: "Look, it was controlled demolition because there was molten steel!"
From: knews4u2chew on 29 Sep 2009 23:20 On Sep 29, 1:42 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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! Ad hominem. Denials. Lie. Easy as 1,2,3. Got anything else? Like I said, you are blind, deaf, and dumb. www.ae911truth.org http://journalof911studies.com http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm Go get a new nym with which to spew your B.S.
From: Al Dykes on 29 Sep 2009 23:27 In article <3593031c-7e5f-40f7-959b-08c5b2c3245e(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sep 29, 1:42=A0pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Sep 29, 12:29=A0pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Sep 25, 1:07=A0pm, Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Sep 23, 3:42=A0pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> > > > On Sep 23, 8:45=A0am, Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > On Sep 22, 2:05=A0pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> >> > > > > > Al Dykes wrote: >> > > > > > > =A0 Henry Guthard, engineer and one of Yamasaki's [WTC design= >er] >> > > > > > > =A0 original partners who also worked as the project manager = >at the >> > > > > > > =A0 [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to = >have pieces >> > > > > > > =A0 come out the other side, it was amazing the building stoo= >d. To >> > > > > > > =A0 defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a b= >uilding of >> > > > > > > =A0 1350 feet is just not possible. >> >> > > > > > =A0 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 impa= >ct >> > > > 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! > >Ad hominem. >Denials. >Lie. > >Easy as 1,2,3. > >Got anything else? >Like I said, you are blind, deaf, and dumb. >www.ae911truth.org >http://journalof911studies.com >http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm You've already been told that the how-hot paper did it's math wrong by a factor of two. Why do you continue to refer to it? -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Iarnrod on 29 Sep 2009 23:56
On Sep 29, 9:27 pm, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > In article <3593031c-7e5f-40f7-959b-08c5b2c32...(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Sep 29, 1:42=A0pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Sep 29, 12:29=A0pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> > On Sep 25, 1:07=A0pm, Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > On Sep 23, 3:42=A0pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> > > > On Sep 23, 8:45=A0am, Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > On Sep 22, 2:05=A0pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > > >> > > > > > Al Dykes wrote: > >> > > > > > > =A0 Henry Guthard, engineer and one of Yamasaki's [WTC design= > >er] > >> > > > > > > =A0 original partners who also worked as the project manager = > >at the > >> > > > > > > =A0 [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to = > >have pieces > >> > > > > > > =A0 come out the other side, it was amazing the building stoo= > >d. To > >> > > > > > > =A0 defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a b= > >uilding of > >> > > > > > > =A0 1350 feet is just not possible. > > >> > > > > > =A0 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 impa= > >ct > >> > > > 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! > > >Ad hominem. > >Denials. > >Lie. > > >Easy as 1,2,3. > > >Got anything else? > >Like I said, you are blind, deaf, and dumb. > >www.ae911truth.org > >http://journalof911studies.com > >http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm > > You've already been told that the how-hot paper did it's math wrong by > a factor of two. Why do you continue to refer to it? Because she's an idiot. |