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 5 Oct 2009 12:49 On Oct 5, 8:11 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > AllYou! wrote: > > Innews:h9b77b$740$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > > Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > >> Please explain the violent 75 foot explosions seen > >> coming out the sides of both towers hundred of feet > >> below the "collapse" zone. > > Even a school kid who's ever stomped his foot really fast onto an > > empty carton of milk knows the answer to that one. > > But apparently (and predictably) you can't... <chuckle> > > Please explain the violent 75 foot explosions seen > coming out the sides of both towers hundred of feet > below the "collapse" zone. Uh, there were none. Are you talking about the puffs of compressed air being pushed out of broken windows? Tell us why you "think" those are explosions, Hankie. Make it good. > Let us know if you dispute > or don't understand any of what is written in Kevin Ryan's > paper below. It is all proven wrong. Got anything new at all since you spent that time in the insnae asylum, Hankie? This is all last year's stuff. Do try to come up with something new we can rip apart.
From: Iarnrod on 5 Oct 2009 12:52 On Oct 5, 10:48 am, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Oct 5, 9:11 am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > > > > > In article <qdGdna6miLDjhFfXnZ2dnUVZ_tGdn...(a)posted.choiceonecommunications>, > > > AllYou! <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: > > >Innews:hacu2q$6kh$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > > >Henry <9-11tr...(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. > > > >There was no melted steel. There is only some anecdotal, second > > >hand reports of some amount of molten metal. No molten steel. > > > >(Insert links here that you mean to imply is evidence of your claim, > > >but which is only actually proof of mine) > > >------------> > > > >>> 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? > > > >That there was any molten steel. > > > >> Here are two of our 9-11 rescue heroes who observed molten metal > > >> "flowing like lava - like a "foundry" > > > >Which is not any kind of evidence that it was molten steel. It > > >could've been any amount of soft metals and other low-melting point > > >substances that were in great abundance in a fully occupied sky > > >scraper. > > > The "foundry" quote is from a few seconds of video of firemen speaking > > about WTC. It's been edited out of something and I have been unable > > to identify the source. The firemen are not identified. > > > Nowhere in the video is "I saw" spoken. The editing is so tight that > > the words that preceded "like a foundry" could very well be "i was told > > some bullshit about ...".. > > > -- > > Al Dykes > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KglmMbprfkw&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afZaK8zVbUw&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wVLeKwSkXAhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-99CLdHWCc&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx33GuVsUtE&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrrJCa1haaY&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ogrupgt4mI&feature=related Nope, just as I thought, no truth there!
From: knews4u2chew on 5 Oct 2009 13:05 On Oct 5, 9:49 am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Oct 5, 8:11 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > > > AllYou! wrote: > > > Innews:h9b77b$740$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > > > Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > > >> Please explain the violent 75 foot explosions seen > > >> coming out the sides of both towers hundred of feet > > >> below the "collapse" zone. > > > Even a school kid who's ever stomped his foot really fast onto an > > > empty carton of milk knows the answer to that one. > > > But apparently (and predictably) you can't... <chuckle> > > > Please explain the violent 75 foot explosions seen > > coming out the sides of both towers hundred of feet > > below the "collapse" zone. > > Uh, there were none. > > Are you talking about the puffs of compressed air being pushed out of > broken windows? > And how did the windows break 30 floors away? Don't tell me "the building was so air tight that the compressed air pulverized concrete and ejected it from the building." That would be another of your lies. > Tell us why you "think" those are explosions, Hankie. Make it good. > Because eyewitnesses describe such. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNU But the again you are the "only one who knows" and will deny and lie about it. > > Let us know if you dispute > > or don't understand any of what is written in Kevin Ryan's > > paper below. > > It is all proven wrong. > Liar. Cite? > Got anything new at all since you spent that time in the insnae > asylum, Hankie? This is all last year's stuff. Do try to come up with > something new we can rip apart. Got anything besides, ad hominem, blanket denials, arm waving, and lies? http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
From: AllYou! on 5 Oct 2009 13:23 In news:hacukg$6kh$14(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> In news:h9b3sj$t6h$4(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> Iarnrod wrote: >>> >>>> All of the evidence supports the official findings. >>> You've confused the word "support" with "contradict". > >>> Tell us why you "think" Cheney would permit a known >>> hijacked plane to enter the most heavy guarded airspace >>> on the planet almost an hour after the first tower was hit. > >> By your standard of what a whacko is, you'd have to provide >> "hard evidence" that Cheney ordered any stand down wrt any such >> plane. > > I did, No one has seen it.
From: AllYou! on 5 Oct 2009 13:27
In news:hacul3$6kh$15(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> In news:h9b77b$740$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > >>> Please explain the violent 75 foot explosions seen >>> coming out the sides of both towers hundred of feet >>> below the "collapse" zone. > >> Even a school kid who's ever stomped his foot really fast onto >> an empty carton of milk knows the answer to that one. > > But apparently (and predictably) you can't... <chuckle> I just did. > Please explain the violent 75 foot explosions seen > coming out the sides of both towers hundred of feet > below the "collapse" zone. Please provide proof that there were any such "explosions" of that magnitude, and how such "explosions" could then result in pools of molten steel that stayed hot enough to remain molten for as long as you claim they did. I did see where windows were being blown out as the buildings kept crashing downward like a foot stomping on an old milk carton, but even a school kid knows why that happened. Why have you never provided any example of how any controlled demolition has ever resulted in pools of molten steel flowing like lava for weeks after the event? |