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: AllYou! on 1 Oct 2009 17:25 In news:94de0c08-28a9-4762-89bc-0aeda272ca86(a)u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Sep 30, 1:04 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > A controlled demolition could have bee performed in many manners > not seen as "standard" demolitions. Provide proof, not arm waving, and not just arm waving by someone else, but PROOF, that one of those manners to which you referr could have applied to the WTC.
From: Al Dykes on 1 Oct 2009 17:30 In article <852aa34a-add3-464d-abed-3068ff9b03db(a)g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Oct 1, 12:22=A0pm, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: >> In article <dd6e9f5e-86fd-4222-a0ae-dde189490...(a)d9g2000prh.googlegroups.= >com>, >> >> >> >> =A0<knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On Oct 1, 8:13=3DA0am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> On Oct 1, 7:58=3DA0am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> >> >> > Daniel wrote: >> >> > > On Sep 23, 3:49 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> >> > >> =3DA0 And even there had been, it couldn't have melted the steel, >> >> > > It didn't melt the steel, and it didn't have to. >> >> >> > =3DA0 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. None of those people say anything like "I saw". It's all second hand. There is no physical evidence for molten steel on the pile. There is no science that would show how the temperatures needed to maintain molten steel were created and maintained for weeks. Given that there is no evidence and no science, we can dismiss the second-hand stories as hyperbole. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: AllYou! on 1 Oct 2009 17:30 In news:ha2ccd$f96$7(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Daniel wrote: >> On Sep 23, 3:49 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>> And even there had been, it couldn't have melted the steel, > >> It didn't melt the steel, and it didn't have to. > > We know the fires didn't melt the steel. Only thermite > explains it. How much steel do you think would have to have been melted in order for the towers to collapse as they did, and then how much thermite do you think would've been required to do the job, and then how much light and noise would have had to have been present all up and down the towers for all of that to have happened? Please provide hard evidence for the data that you supply. >> Get back to us once >> you have some credible sources to back up your claims. > > Since you agree that the fires couldn't have produced > the molten metal, what claim are you disputing? There is no "hard evidence" of how much molten metal was at the site, nor is there any proof at all that it was steel. Please provide an example of where, in modern history, a controlled demolition ever resulted in enough molten steel so that it flowed like lava.
From: AllYou! on 1 Oct 2009 17:31 In news:dd6e9f5e-86fd-4222-a0ae-dde18949092d(a)d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Oct 1, 8:13 am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Oct 1, 7:58 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> >>> Daniel wrote: >>>> On Sep 23, 3:49 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >>>>> And even there had been, it couldn't have melted the steel, >>>> It didn't melt the steel, and it didn't have to. >> >>> 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? What is your position on ad hominems again?
From: AllYou! on 1 Oct 2009 17:35
In news:852aa34a-add3-464d-abed-3068ff9b03db(a)g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > 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. Even if that fantasy were true, it's not proof that it was steel. Moreover, you've never shown how any controlled demolition has ever resulted in pools of molten steel. > 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." So you have no proof for your claims because it's your claim that all the proof was stolen. Do you have any proof of THAT claim? |