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 15:04 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, > 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. http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS345&=&q=disinformation+tactics&btnG=Google+Search
From: Al Dykes on 2 Oct 2009 18:01 In article <216eb011-4375-45a9-a6e3-8b8c16716135(a)y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Oct 2, 4:39=A0am, "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.co= >m, >> >> 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=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. >> >> >> 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. > That's silly. I saw the trucks leave the site every day on my way into work and on my way home. There was no guard, heavy or otherwise. -- 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 18:04 In article <8144ff51-9c24-4b04-a2e3-41e044bdb1a9(a)q40g2000prh.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, >> 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. > >http://www.google.com/search?source=3Dig&hl=3Den&rlz=3D1G1GGLQ_ENUS345&=3D&= >q=3Ddisinformation+tactics&btnG=3DGoogle+Search BEEP BEEP BEEP k00k changes topics instead of addressing point BEEP BEEP BEEP Nobody knows how to use any type of thermite to cut large vertical beams in any way consistent with the way we see the WTC towers collapse on YouTube. nobody. -- 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 21:04 On Oct 2, 1:04 pm, 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, > > 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. > > http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS345&=&q=... Sorry but you will not be successful at suppressing the truth, but thanks for the insight into how you intend to pursue your disinformation campaign. The truth is known. UBL's suicide crews hijacked four airliners and crashed them, and that is responsible for all the damages and deaths. EOS. FACT. Your attempt to throw physically impossible and thoroughly disproven delusions intot he public discourse is rejected by any one with a brain.
From: AllYou! on 3 Oct 2009 10:11
In news:216eb011-4375-45a9-a6e3-8b8c16716135(a)y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > 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. In the middle of one of the largest cities in the world, and then over to various sites to which almost anyone had access. > >>> Who has it? >> >> Did you expect it to be saved forever? >> > No answer noted. Yes, your non answer is noted. > >>> Did it disappear? >> >> Not before it was thouroughly examined by anyone who wanted to >> see it. >> > Liar. Prove it. > And the evidence of what was examined has been ignored. All the real evidence of what happened was thoroughly included in the determination of the real conclusion. > So you and the report writers lie about it. Prove 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 Nothing there is proof of anything at all. It's all just fantasies and arm waving. > >>> How convenient. >> >> So all of your proof is that THE truth is convenient? > > The truth is the truth. Of which you seem to be incapable of recognizing. > You are in denial. Of fantasies. |