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 1 Oct 2009 16:19 On Oct 1, 1:15 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > You've done nothing but rant, rave, and spew. Projection. I have proven you wrong and you have YET to provide ONE SINGLE PIECE of evidence to support your physically impossible claims.
From: Iarnrod on 1 Oct 2009 16:20 On Oct 1, 1:26 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Insider Jews and Zionist Nasis/Nazis rant and obfuscate almost alike, > so much so that I can't seems to tell them apart. Must be the reason > why they almost never police their own kind. (if it doesn't go > mainstream public, then they never police their own kind) > > ~ BG Are you fucked in the head, KKKook?
From: BradGuth on 1 Oct 2009 16:34 On Aug 20, 2:47 pm, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > n Aug 20, 1:07 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >http://www.voltairnet.org/article16636.html > >http://algxy.com/psych/9-11sceario.htmlhttp://libertycalling.com/cmom... > > If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would > stop their terrorist activities http://www.metroactive.com/metro/09.09.09/cover-0936.html ~ BG
From: knews4u2chew on 1 Oct 2009 17:12 On Oct 1, 12:22 pm, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > In article <dd6e9f5e-86fd-4222-a0ae-dde189490...(a)d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Oct 1, 8:13=A0am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 1, 7:58=A0am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > > >> > Daniel wrote: > >> > > On Sep 23, 3:49 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >> > >> =A0 And even there had been, it couldn't have melted the steel, > >> > > It didn't melt the steel, and it didn't have to. > > >> > =A0 We know the fires didn't melt the steel. Only thermite > >> > explains it. > > >> No steel melted, and it is physically impossible for thermite to > >> produce what happened on 9/11. Other than that, Hankie, you're still > >> batting 0.000. > > >How does one become such a liar? > > There is no eyewitness reports of molten steel on the pile at WTC. > All the reports are second-hand. > > -- So who took the "first hand" evidence away? There are EYEWITNESS accounts of "red hot flowing molten" SOMETHING. The eyewitness couldn't cart the "evidence" away because it was CONTROLLED. ANY "true scientific" analysis is "IMPOSSIBLE" since the evidence "we" have is "in dispute." But those with 'real evidence" won't test it. Geeeee. It "could have been" ANY type of metal. BUT what one earth could make and keep metal "Red Hot" for weeks? The USGS has put the EVIDENCE in plain sight. You can DENY all you want. Aluminum still would have to be at EXTREME heat to be red hot. It would turn silvery near immediately after exposure to air. SOMETHING provided the oxygen to sustain these temperatures. There is only ONE THING statistically "evident" in simple and complex forms that could create this reaction. YOU can dispute it's pedigree all you want BUT the other "known" samples will not be tested. Who has the most motivation to lie? Who made the most money? Who had the motive? The means? The opportunity? The finances? Use your head. It's not rocket science. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
From: DanB on 1 Oct 2009 17:14
Iarnrod wrote: > On Oct 1, 12:51 am, DanB <a...(a)some.net> wrote: >> Iarnrod wrote: >>> On Sep 30, 5:49 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>> A controlled demolition could have bee performed in many manners not >>>> seen as "standard" demolitions. >>> No it could not have. >> Not sure what bees have to do with this but you need a comma after 'No'. > > No I don't. Yes you do. |