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: Iarnrod on 30 Sep 2009 16:32 On Sep 30, 2:04 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > 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. And an eternity in your self-induced lunacy. WATCH your cited video, KKKook. SEE the bright light; hear the noise; look at the casing; see the tiny steel strip that was cut... None of this applies to the WTC, dearie. You're really grasping at straws!! Imagine, THOUSANDS of these little devices somehow placed against thick steel girders of a 110 story building -- without anyone seeing work crews strip away wallboard to get near the structural pieces -- and having them all go off precisely in nanosecond timing to produce this collapse. WITHOUT the brilliant flashes of thousands of these devices being seen by ANY of the tens of thousands of witnesses!! AMAZING!! Then during cleanup, NOT A SINGLE ONE IS FOUND!!! WHY? Because it didn't exist util 2006 and the patent was approved in July of this year. WAIT!!! Maybe TIME TRAVEL is part of your ultimate kooker konspiracy!! That's it!!! TIME TRAVEL!!! Maybe they used devices not yet invented, those pesky jooooos!!! Like I said, nutbag rightard, with every post you only prove more and more just how physically impossible your delusions are.
From: Iarnrod on 30 Sep 2009 16:33 On Sep 30, 2:10 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > 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. Yes, AllYou! You bad person!! Go away and stop proving Knewnothing wrong!! He has to maintain his delusions!
From: Daniel on 30 Sep 2009 17:02 On Sep 28, 7:28 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:e78182ab-1697-4931-a40e-c41853b1df03(a)z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, > Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: > > > Cite? Give us the specific amount of fuel that burned on impact, > > and provide credible cites. > > Please provide one credible cite wherein any credible engineer > claims that the FORCE of the impact of the planes on the WTC was the > only cause for their collapse. I never said it was, merely that it was a HUGE contributing factor. I was not the one INGORING the planes crashing into the WTC, it was you truthers.
From: knews4u2chew on 30 Sep 2009 17:38 On Sep 30, 1:32 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sep 30, 2:04 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > 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. > > And an eternity in your self-induced lunacy. > > WATCH your cited video, KKKook. SEE the bright light; hear the noise; > look at the casing; see the tiny steel strip that was cut... > > None of this applies to the WTC, dearie. The why do you snip the simple, crude, small scale, reduced compound example? 5 seconds to watch. A split second to cut. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M And this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmPdiuywnGQ&feature=related "A relatively simple design." Because it is so incriminating to your argument. You think everyone is as deaf, dumb, and blind as you. You don't think the military has technology that is many orders of magnitude more efficient than these examples. But then again YOU know everything yet haven't produced one credential. http://physics911.net www.ae911thruth.org http://journalof911studies.com
From: Iarnrod on 30 Sep 2009 19:12
On Sep 30, 3:38 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Sep 30, 1:32 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 30, 2:04 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > 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. > > > And an eternity in your self-induced lunacy. > > > WATCH your cited video, KKKook. SEE the bright light; hear the noise; > > look at the casing; see the tiny steel strip that was cut... > > > None of this applies to the WTC, dearie. > > The why do you snip the simple, crude, small scale, reduced compound > example? > 5 seconds to watch. > A split second to cut.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M You're right, since it proves you're a liar and that I am correct, i should have kept it in!!! > And this one.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmPdiuywnGQ&feature=related > "A relatively simple design." Proves me correct and you to be a liar and your theory physically impossible. Thanks for reminding us again just how incredibly stupid you are! > Because it is so incriminating to your argument. Umm, it proves me correct, rightard. Wow. > You think everyone is as deaf, dumb, and blind as you. Since I see the cites for what they actually say, and that they contradict your theory, actually makes YOU deaf dumb and blind AND terminally stupid. > You don't think the military has technology that is many orders of > magnitude more efficient than these examples. Ahhh finally we have it... the Super Secret Military Weapons Bunker where we can always rely on you troofer rightard kkkooks to resort when your argument falls apart!! "Of course I can't explain it!!!! The military has it under wraps!!!" BWAHAAHAAHAAAAA!!! What you fail to realize is that it doesn't matter... your cites still support me and contradict the foundation of your lunatic theory. > But then again YOU know everything yet haven't produced one > credential. Of course I have, idiot. You haven't. You've only provided links to sites that feature disproven lies. You have YET to come up with one single example of even one teensy eensy little problem with the official investigation. You're SCARED to try because you know you will FAIL. |