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 30 Sep 2009 14:44 On Sep 30, 4:46 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:3593031c-7e5f-40f7-959b-08c5b2c3245e(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > > Ad hominem. > > Denials. > > Lie. > > Easy as 1,2,3. > > > Got anything else? > > Like I said, you are blind, deaf, and dumb. > > LOL! > > Give it up. Your evidence doesn't hold any water whatsoever. > That's why you've given up defending it, or trying to explain it, > and just post links that, in most cases, have nothing at all to do > with the issues or questions being posed to you. For instance, how > could a controlled demolition of a building be so precsely timed so > as to create the illusion of a free fall by using a substance which, > at best, can only melt some steel, and really not be capable of > doing so in a vertical position? > Proof it can't cut on an angle with gravity? Proof it can be "directed" upwards under it's own expansion pressure? Have you ever made a "match rocket?" http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=match+rocket+how+to&search_type=&aq=1&oq=match+rocket I guess they only "burn downward" too? Proof the isn't Nano-thermite in the WTC residue? http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=thermite+jones+burn&search_type=&aq=f > When you're cornere with such practicalities, your answers are to > either post links that don't provide any answeres, or to claim that > it's through the use of "black ops" operatives using technologies > that they've yet to make public. > > Obviously, you don't mind being a fool. Ad hominem loses. And learn to use a spell checker. Are you drunk?
From: AllYou! on 30 Sep 2009 14:45 In news:da4204c0-72b1-456f-a732-b3a7a1caab6b(a)y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Sep 29, 8:55 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > <lies, ad hominem, and no facts snipped> > > Gee, nothing left. You never had anything to begin with. 'A controlled demolition by *melting* enough steel so that it flows like lava' LOL!
From: Iarnrod on 30 Sep 2009 14:49 On Sep 30, 6:20 am, Hank the Janitor <9-11tr...(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. Since that is not what happened, Hankie, why are you wasting people's time with delusional physically impossible fantasies?
From: AllYou! on 30 Sep 2009 14:53 In news:0a51998e-65a6-473b-826b-96fbc004cb79(a)g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Sep 30, 4:46 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Innews:3593031c-7e5f-40f7-959b-08c5b2c3245e(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: >> >>> Ad hominem. >>> Denials. >>> Lie. >>> Easy as 1,2,3. >> >>> Got anything else? >>> Like I said, you are blind, deaf, and dumb. >> >> LOL! >> >> Give it up. Your evidence doesn't hold any water whatsoever. >> That's why you've given up defending it, or trying to explain >> it, and just post links that, in most cases, have nothing at >> all to do with the issues or questions being posed to you. For >> instance, how could a controlled demolition of a building be so >> precsely timed so as to create the illusion of a free fall by >> using a substance which, at best, can only melt some steel, and >> really not be capable of doing so in a vertical position? >> > Proof it can't cut on an angle with gravity? It's never been done tyo a major hunk of steel as large as the columns in the WTC. If you think it has, prove it. Or is that just another black ops thing? > Proof it can be "directed" upwards under it's own expansion > pressure? I never said it could be. > Have you ever made a "match rocket?" > http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=match+rocket+how+to&search_type=&aq=1&oq=match+rocket > I guess they only "burn downward" too? A match rocket doesn't melt so much steel that it 'flows like a river of lava'. > Proof the isn't Nano-thermite in the WTC residue? Prove a negative? LOL! It's never been proven to exist. Nothing of what you claim has ever been 'proven' except that some idiot claims to have gotten some dust from another idiot who claims to have gotten it from somewhere in NYC some time after 911 in which that dust contains something that might be found in some substance that can't melt steel unless it's allowed to pool on it, and which, if mixed with enough steel, will simply dilute itself to uselessness. That's the extent of your poof..... er....I mean proof. >> Obviously, you don't mind being a fool. > > Ad hominem loses. Which is why you lose.
From: knews4u2chew on 30 Sep 2009 15:26
On Sep 30, 11:53 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:0a51998e-65a6-473b-826b-96fbc004cb79(a)g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com, > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > > > > On Sep 30, 4:46 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > >> Innews:3593031c-7e5f-40f7-959b-08c5b2c3245e(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, > >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: > > >>> Ad hominem. > >>> Denials. > >>> Lie. > >>> Easy as 1,2,3. > > >>> Got anything else? > >>> Like I said, you are blind, deaf, and dumb. > > >> LOL! > > >> Give it up. Your evidence doesn't hold any water whatsoever. > >> That's why you've given up defending it, or trying to explain > >> it, and just post links that, in most cases, have nothing at > >> all to do with the issues or questions being posed to you. For > >> instance, how could a controlled demolition of a building be so > >> precsely timed so as to create the illusion of a free fall by > >> using a substance which, at best, can only melt some steel, and > >> really not be capable of doing so in a vertical position? > > > Proof it can't cut on an angle with gravity? > > It's never been done tyo a major hunk of steel as large as the > columns in the WTC. If you think it has, prove it. Or is that just > another black ops thing? > > > Proof it can be "directed" upwards under it's own expansion > > pressure? > <Correction> Proof it [can't] be "directed" upwards under it's own expansion > > pressure? > I never said it could be. > I say it can be. > > Have you ever made a "match rocket?" > >http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=match+rocket+how+to&searc.... > > I guess they only "burn downward" too? > > A match rocket doesn't melt so much steel that it 'flows like a > river of lava'. > You are a fool. Don't put words in my mouth. ANY incendiary could be used for to generate it's own upward pressure. You do nothing but obfuscate. > > Proof the isn't Nano-thermite in the WTC residue? > > Prove a negative? LOL! It's never been proven to exist. Liar. http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS345&=&q=nano-thermite&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi= >Nothing > of what you claim has ever been 'proven' except that some idiot > claims to have gotten some dust from another idiot who claims to > have gotten it from somewhere in NYC some time after 911 in which > that dust contains something that might be found in some substance > that can't melt steel unless it's allowed to pool on it, and which, > if mixed with enough steel, will simply dilute itself to > uselessness. > Liar. > That's the extent of your poof..... er....I mean proof. > > >> Obviously, you don't mind being a fool. > > > Ad hominem loses. > > Which is why you lose. Which is why you lie, deny, distact, detract, obfuscate ad infinitum.... http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM |