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 18:38 On Oct 1, 3:30 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > 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. In fact, other than the hot yellowish stuff that dripped briefly from the damaged floor where a Japanese bank's commuter network battery array was maintained, there's no evidence there ever was ANY molten metal of any kind at all,.
From: Iarnrod on 1 Oct 2009 18:42 On Oct 1, 3:58 pm, pv+use...(a)pobox.com (PV) wrote: > Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >On Oct 1, 1:26 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> ~ BG > > >Are you fucked in the head, KKKook? > > Is he *ever*. Brad also believes the moon landings never happened. * I know, it's just all too funny!! If you are predisposed to dfelusion, ar least it's equal opportunity. He's probably an Obama Birther too, and a GHWBush-killed-JFK nutbag.
From: DanB on 1 Oct 2009 18:47 Iarnrod wrote: > On Oct 1, 3:14 pm, DanB <a...(a)some.net> wrote: >> 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. > > No I, don't. Yes, you do.
From: Iarnrod on 1 Oct 2009 19:18 On Oct 1, 4:47 pm, DanB <a...(a)some.net> wrote: > Iarnrod wrote: > > On Oct 1, 3:14 pm, DanB <a...(a)some.net> wrote: > >> 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. > > > No I, don't. > > Yes, you do. No, I, don't.
From: AllYou! on 2 Oct 2009 07:39
In news:6a329f66-529c-4225-b022-39c9f5eb0426(a)v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Oct 1, 2:35 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Innews:852aa34a-add3-464d-abed-3068ff9b03db(a)g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com, >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(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? > > Where is the building? In the middle of the largest city in the world. > Where is the rubble? Same. > Who has it? Did you expect it to be saved forever? > Did it disappear? Not before it was thouroughly examined by anyone who wanted to see it. > If there is none does that mean the buildings never existed? It means that your imaginary thermite didn't exist. > How convenient. So all of your proof is that THE truth is convenient? |