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 2 Oct 2009 12:06 On Oct 2, 6:49 am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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, Lie noted. > Why are you so concerned with advancing your physically impossible > explanation for a non-existent event? Non-sequituer. >You make up a lie that steel > melted, But it is in the FEMA and NIST reports blind man. >then come up with a theory that couldn't have happened to > explain it. That's nuts. > You need to apply for disability for your blindness. > 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. Liar. http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf Denial is not a river in Egypt. You are either plainly blind or paid to spew your lies.
From: Al Dykes on 2 Oct 2009 12:10 In article <0472a49e-76d2-4ae4-a9f7-d6b2e9d8d394(a)v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Oct 2, 6:49=A0am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Oct 2, 6:28 am, Hank the very very confused janitor >> >> <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> > =A0 We know the fires didn't melt the steel. Only thermite >> > explains it. >> >> Nothing explains your unremitting insanity, Hankie. No steel melted, > >Lie noted. > 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
From: knews4u2chew on 2 Oct 2009 12:14 On Oct 2, 4:39 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > Innews:6a329f66-529c-4225-b022-39c9f5eb0426(a)v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com, > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(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. > Liar. It was hauled away under heavy guard. > > Where is the rubble? > > Same. > Maybe in your fantasy land. > > Who has it? > > Did you expect it to be saved forever? > No answer noted. > > Did it disappear? > > Not before it was thouroughly examined by anyone who wanted to see > it. > Liar. And the evidence of what was examined has been ignored. So you and the report writers lie about it. > > If there is none does that mean the buildings never existed? > > It means that your imaginary thermite didn't exist. > Liar. http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf > > How convenient. > > So all of your proof is that THE truth is convenient? The truth is the truth. You are in denial. www.ae911truth.org http://journalof911studies.com http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
From: Iarnrod on 2 Oct 2009 14:45 On Oct 2, 10:06 am, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Oct 2, 6:49 am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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, > > Lie noted. By you, that is. I am correct. No steel melted. You have not one shred of evidence that any did. No sane person alleges it did. > > Why are you so concerned with advancing your physically impossible > > explanation for a non-existent event? > > Non-sequituer. Nope. 1) You have alleged a non-existent event (melting steel) and 2) you propose that thermite is responsible when it is proven that thermite could not possibly have produced the structural collapses that occurred and 3) you seem so concerned about your nutter theory that you post obsessively with more lies about it. Completely sequitous. > >You make up a lie that steel > > melted, > > But it is in the FEMA and NIST reports blind man. No it is not, and I am a woman, blind man. There were spots on some steel beams that showed intergranular melting (BTW, disproving your kkkooker klaim that the steel was not examined or investigated) but this is not the steel melting, it is spots on the steel being damaged. > >then come up with a theory that couldn't have happened to > > explain it. That's nuts. > > You need to apply for disability for your blindness. Oh the ironic projection. > > 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. > > Liar. You have failed to show I lied about one single thing, unlike how I have proven youve lied about everything. > http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf This debunked kooksite fails to support you; thermite does not do anything that was done on 9/11. FACT. > Denial is not a river in Egypt. You are Cleopatra, Queen of Denial. You deny physics, reality and proven facts that are indisputable, yet you fully embrace and jump head first into the kookiest physically impossible could-not-have- happened delusions at full speed with no critical thought or analysis. > You are either plainly blind or paid to spew your lies. BWAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!! This is the final proof of your mental retardation!
From: Iarnrod on 2 Oct 2009 14:50
On Oct 2, 10:14 am, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Oct 2, 4:39 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > > > Innews:6a329f66-529c-4225-b022-39c9f5eb0426(a)v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com, > > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(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. > > Liar. > It was hauled away under heavy guard. Liar. No it wasn't. > > > Where is the rubble? > > > Same. > > Maybe in your fantasy land. Aren't you a natural-born citizen of fantasy land? > > > Who has it? > > > Did you expect it to be saved forever? > > No answer noted. By you. It was thoroughly investigated and examined by knowledgeable and proper experts before any of it was released. Again, do you expect tens of thousands of tons of debris to be retained forever? > > > Did it disappear? > > > Not before it was thouroughly examined by anyone who wanted to see > > it. > > Liar. You are. > And the evidence of what was examined has been ignored. No it hasn't. You ignore it and make up your own. > So you and the report writers lie about it. Nope. You do. FACT. > > > If there is none does that mean the buildings never existed? > > > It means that your imaginary thermite didn't exist. > > Liar.http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf That link does not support you. Thermite cannot do what was done. Thermite does not burn invisibly. > > > How convenient. > > > So all of your proof is that THE truth is convenient? > > The truth is the truth. Correct. And the truth is on our side, not yours. > You are in denial. You are Cleopatra, Queen of Denial. |