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 15:41 On Sep 30, 5:23 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:h9vicq$5kc$4(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11tr...(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. > > I've done that many times now, and yet, you still claim that no one > has disputed anything. > > So here's one question that you have refused to answer..... > > Where, in all of modern history, has there ever been a controlled > demolition which has ever resulted in "pools of molten metal that > flows like a river"? WTC 1. WTC 2. WTC 7. Where in ANY history has a "office high rise" collapsed at near free fall speed from fire alone? 0
From: Michael Moroney on 30 Sep 2009 15:54 knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com writes: >On Sep 29, 8:55=A0pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>Hey, you're the fuckin' bozo who thinks explosives can go off >>invisibly and without making any noise. >Cite? >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0qnHlVTaVs&feature=related That's thermite, not explosives. Notice how long it takes the thermite to burn through 1/2" of steel. Think of how long it takes to burn through 6" or more of structural steel. And think how controlled demolition requires millisecond precision on the timing of the charges. >There was plenty of noise at the WTC. >http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=WTC+explosions&search_type=&aq=f Once again, this is what a REAL controlled demolition looks and sounds like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG with bright flashes. NONE of the videos in that search have anything remotely like this. The kooktards won't address why none of the WTC videos are like this one. Because they CAN'T. "Hushaboom" exists only in the Bullwinkle cartoons.
From: Iarnrod on 30 Sep 2009 16:04 On Sep 30, 1:41 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Sep 30, 5:23 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > > > > > Innews:h9vicq$5kc$4(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > > Henry <9-11tr...(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. > > > I've done that many times now, and yet, you still claim that no one > > has disputed anything. > > > So here's one question that you have refused to answer..... > > > Where, in all of modern history, has there ever been a controlled > > demolition which has ever resulted in "pools of molten metal that > > flows like a river"? > > WTC 1. > WTC 2. > WTC 7. There was no molten steel, dearie, and it's been proven to be physically impossible for them to have been controlled demolitions. Wanna try again? > Where in ANY history has a "office high rise" collapsed at near free > fall speed from fire alone? Well, WTC was nowhere near freefall speeds, and of course you musta fuckin' MISSED those big airplanes that crashed into them causing massive structural damage and imbalanced loading... but... You apparently are unaware of Windsor Tower in Madrid. The ENTIRE steel framed portion of the high rise building COMPLETELY and TOTALLY collapsed due ONLY to fire....IOW no planes hit it, unlike the WTC towers. > 0 ^^^ This must be your IQ.
From: knews4u2chew on 30 Sep 2009 16:04 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? 5 seconds to watch. A split second to cut. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M
From: knews4u2chew on 30 Sep 2009 16:10
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? > Go away. Your lies and obfuscations are useless. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmPdiuywnGQ&feature=related "A relatively simple design." |