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 19:49 On Sep 30, 1:04 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. Cite for "physically impossible." > Wanna try again? > A controlled demolition could have bee performed in many manners not seen as "standard" demolitions. > > 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... > Of course you lie again. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html > 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. > Of course you lie again. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html > > 0 > > ^^^ This must be your IQ. Better than being a liar.
From: AllYou! on 30 Sep 2009 19:57 In news:4602f205-c26c-4eab-be28-aed777bfdb1e(a)k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > 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. Just as I thought. You're caught in an endless loop of circular logic wherein your conclusions support your arguments for your conclusions which support your arguments.................... > > Where in ANY history has a "office high rise" collapsed at near > free fall speed from fire alone? > > 0 Exactly. And whereas you've included the WTC in your data scope, you've defeated your own argument without even knowing it. Hint: There has never been one. Ever. Not even the WTC.
From: AllYou! on 30 Sep 2009 20:15 In news:3876223b-b5cd-48bf-b831-cdcc3a17db30(a)k13g2000prh.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? > > 5 seconds to watch. > A split second to cut. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0qnHlVTaVs&feature=related And all of that just to cut through 1/2" steel. Now please tell me how that amount of brightness, multiplied by orders of magnitudes just to melt through one column that's inches upon inches thick, and fully feet upon feet around, could not have been observed if installed at what must have been thousands upon thousands of locations in order to cause the towers to fall at what you claim is near free fall speed, and not have lit up all of NYC like the surface of the sun.
From: AllYou! on 30 Sep 2009 20:17 In news:23f2bb19-6094-4561-97b5-2e0bc42cf13a(a)f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, Daniel <sabot120mm(a)hotmail.com> mused: > 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. Well, when you find out who that was, you should admonish them.
From: Iarnrod on 30 Sep 2009 20:48
On Sep 30, 5:49 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Sep 30, 1:04 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Cite for "physically impossible." Ummm, already done, sweetheart, There is no such thing as silent and invisible explosives to thermite. You are simply conjuring. > > Wanna try again? > > A controlled demolition could have bee performed in many manners not > seen as "standard" demolitions. No it could not have. Again, you are just conjuring, falling back on the tried-and-false rightard tactic of "It had all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition except that there were none of the hallmarks of a controlled demolition because the big bad gubmint must know super duper ninja secret ways to do things without us seeing them done." Absolutely ridiculous. > > > 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... > > Of course you lie again.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html I have never lied; you have only lied. Your cite lies. Anyone with a fuckin' watch that has a second hand can see these were nowhere near freefall. Q.E.D. and case fuckin' closed, bozo. > > 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. > > Of course you lie again.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html Nope. Your cite lies. I am 100 percent accurate and you are wrong. Windsor Tower's ENTIRE steel framed structure COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY collapsed due ONLY to fire, and with no structural crash damages like the three WTC buildings suffered which added imbalanced loading issues to the structures. Look, rightard, all you gots to do is just LOOK at the photos of Windsor Tower. COMPLETE LACK of steel structure remaining after fire=Iarnrod correct and you wrong. LOOK AT THE PHOTOS. Geez. > > > > 0 > > > ^^^ This must be your IQ. > > Better than being a liar. You're that too, though. Sux to be you! |