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: Al Dykes on 2 Oct 2009 09:27 In article <ha4rcf$98j$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Ironhead amused its many betters with the folowling moronic lie: > >> there's no evidence there ever was ANY molten >> metal of any kind at all,. > > > Evidence of molten metal at WTC7 is well documented. > >http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html.) >http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread320818/pg1 >http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf > None of the people quoted say anything equal to "I saw molten steel". I've been looking at Twoofer quotes about this for 3 years. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Al Dykes on 2 Oct 2009 09:28 In article <ha4rks$98j$7(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(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. And there is no eyewitness report for molten steel in the pile. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Iarnrod on 2 Oct 2009 09:49 On Oct 2, 6:28 am, Hank the very very confused janitor <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > We know the fires didn't melt the steel. Only thermite > explains it. Nothing explains your unremitting insanity, Hankie. No steel melted, Why are you so concerned with advancing your physically impossible explanation for a non-existent event? You make up a lie that steel melted, then come up with a theory that couldn't have happened to explain it. That's nuts. It has been proven that it is physically impossible for your cartoon magic super ninja smokeless and invisible "thermite" to even come close to mimicking the actual structural failure collapse of the buildings. Thermite just don't do 'dat, Hankster. Q.E.D.
From: Henry on 2 Oct 2009 11:29 Al Dykes wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Ironhead amused its many betters with the folowling moronic lie: >>> there's no evidence there ever was ANY molten metal of any kind >>> at all. >> Evidence of molten metal at WTC7 is well documented. >> http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html.) >> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread320818/pg1 >> http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf > None of the people quoted say anything equal to "I saw molten steel". http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287 And of course, if you destroy the supports on only one side of a tall building, it will still drop straight down onto its own footprint, right, Al? <chuckle> >> Do you actually believe that if supports on only one side of a tall >> building are destroyed, the building will drop straight down onto >> its own footprint? > Yes. Who do you "think" faked all the photos and videos showing tall buildings topping sideways, and why do you "think" they did it? http://www.metacafe.com/watch/176540/china_demolition/ I wonder if the other magic fire cartoon conspiracy kooks are embarrassed by the level of your insanity yet? <vbg> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Al Dykes on 2 Oct 2009 11:33
In article <ha5688$7o$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Al Dykes wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>> Ironhead amused its many betters with the folowling moronic lie: > >>>> there's no evidence there ever was ANY molten metal of any kind >>>> at all. > >>> Evidence of molten metal at WTC7 is well documented. > >>> http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html.) >>> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread320818/pg1 >>> http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf > >> None of the people quoted say anything equal to "I saw molten steel". > >http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287 > > And of course, if you destroy the supports on only >one side of a tall building, it will still drop straight >down onto its own footprint, right, Al? <chuckle> > >>> Do you actually believe that if supports on only one side of a tall >>> building are destroyed, the building will drop straight down onto >>> its own footprint? BEEP BEEP BEEP k00k changes topics instead of addressing point BEEP BEEP BEEP There are no first-hand eyewitness reports of molten steel on the pile at WTC. All the reports are 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 |