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: Michael Moroney on 6 Oct 2009 15:14 adykes(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) writes: >In article <4e872f33-4f18-4a40-9d86-73e14d50b623(a)m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3D6498070204870579516# >Another broken link ChewToy is actually correct, for once. (stopped clock correct twice a day, blind squirrel finding a nut etc.) He posts from Google, which uses quoted-pukable encoding, a method for encoding non-ASCII characters. A side effect of it is it converts all equal signs "=" into "=3D", and this breaks links to youtube and Google Videos. Your newsreader doesn't know how to decode it. I don't know why ChewToy expects us to watch an hour of kooktardery to see a portion that supposedly proves his point that's maybe 10 seconds long.
From: Henry on 6 Oct 2009 15:20 Al Dykes wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Al Dykes wrote: >>> There was no man-made demolition at WTC on 9/11. >> So, all the videos showing exactly that are faked, eh? >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=channel_page > There is no video of an explosion immediately preceding collapse of a > WTC tower with a correctly tmes the BOOM on the sound track. It would > be just a few seconds long. All the videos show massive synchronized explosions at the start of the tower demolitions. The fact that the demolitions started 1000 feet above street level with multiple synchronized explosions is the reason you don't hear one "boom" before the building starts to explode. Apparently, you're unaware of the fact that sound waves travel *much* more slowly than light waves. Can't say that comes as any surprise, given the level of your insanity and your other insane, reality defying beliefs, though.... >> 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? <chuckle> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Al Dykes on 6 Oct 2009 15:21 In article <hag59i$cct$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Al Dykes wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>> Al Dykes wrote: > >>>> There was no man-made demolition at WTC on 9/11. >>> So, all the videos showing exactly that are faked, eh? > >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=channel_page > >> There is no video of an explosion immediately preceding collapse of a >> WTC tower with a correctly tmes the BOOM on the sound track. It would >> be just a few seconds long. > > All the videos show massive synchronized explosions at the start None of which have a correctly times BOOM on the sound track. There are no silent explosives. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Henry on 6 Oct 2009 15:32 Al Dykes wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Al Dykes wrote: >>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>>> Al Dykes wrote: >>>>> There was no man-made demolition at WTC on 9/11. >>>> So, all the videos showing exactly that are faked, eh? >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=channel_page >>> There is no video of an explosion immediately preceding collapse of a >>> WTC tower with a correctly tmes the BOOM on the sound track. It would >>> be just a few seconds long. >> All the videos show massive synchronized explosions at the start >> of the tower demolitions. The fact that the demolitions started 1000 >> feet above street level with multiple synchronized explosions is the >> reason you don't hear one "boom" before the building starts to explode. >> Apparently, you're unaware of the fact that sound waves travel *much* >> more slowly than light waves. Can't say that comes as any surprise, >> given the level of your insanity and your other insane, reality defying >> beliefs, though.... > None of which have a correctly times BOOM on the sound track. Wow, even after the reason is explained to this psychotic nut job, he still can't understand it. Very "impressive"... <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? <chuckle> http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: AllYou! on 6 Oct 2009 16:05
In news:hag1vo$6mi$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> AllYou! wrote: >>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > >>>>> Tell us why you "think" your imaginary compressed air >>>>> remained focused like a cannon shot when it entered the vast >>>>> open office spaces. > >>>> It didn't have to do that > >>> Compressed air can't do that if it enters a huge open area of >>> uncompressed air, but according to you, it did. That's why we >>> know you're nuts. > >>>> It doesn't need to be tightly focused. > >>> But it did. > >> It never does. Pressure is equal across the entire pressure >> boundary, > > You're contradicting yourself. According to you, when the > equal pressure encountered rows of windows of equal size and > strength, it blew out the side of the building in a tightly > focused explosion of pulverized concrete. Actually, that's according to you. Had you understood fairly plain English, you'd now know that what I said was that the failure of the pressure boudary will happen at its weakest point, and that, just as the strength of each link in a chain vaires slightly from the other, each window in a building will vary in strength forme the others, and that some will bust before the others. Why would you lie about what I said? Or is it that you read your fantasies into what other people actually say? > Why didn't it blow > out entire rows of windows without the pulverized concrete > since the windows all had the same force applied to them? As I've now explained to you very many times, it's because just as no two links in a chain can be of exactly equal strength, no two window systems (glass & frame) can be of exactly equal strength either. Hre's the full context of our exchange, which you snipped: >>> Tell us why you "think" your imaginary compressed air remained >>> focused like a cannon shot when it entered the vast open office >>> spaces. > >> It didn't have to do that > > Compressed air can't do that if it enters a huge open area of > uncompressed air, but according to you, it did. That's why we > know you're nuts. The inside of a balloon is an open space too. As long as the volume of air entering any space, no matter the size, is greater then the volume leaving it, the pressure will build. It's just that simple. >> It doesn't need to be tightly focused. > > But it did. It never does. Pressure is equal across the entire pressure boundary, and a catastrophic failure will occur at the weakest point whenever the pressure rises sufficiently to do so. > Your imaginary compressed air didn't blow out rows > of windows, but remained tightly focused as it entered the open > office spaces until it violently exploded through the exterior > walls in a huge focused burst of pulverized concrete and other > debris. You mean like it does in the cartoons? No, not really. Take a course in fluid dynamics, and then get back to me. > They were massive explosions the size of houses. The size of very large windows. Your own expert said that they were pinpoint. |