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: AllYou! on 6 Oct 2009 16:07 In news:hag3o7$9hr$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Al Dykes wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>> AllYou! wrote: >>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>>>> AllYou! wrote: >>>>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > >>>>>>> Tell us why you "think" your imaginary compressed air >>>>>>> remained focused like a cannon shot when it entered the >>>>>>> vast open office spaces. > >>>>>> It didn't have to do that > >>>>> But it did. > >>>> It never does. Pressure is equal across the entire pressure >>>> boundary, > >>> You're contradicting yourself. According to you, when the >>> equal pressure encountered rows of windows of equal size and >>> strength, it blew out the side of the building in a tightly >>> focused explosion of pulverized concrete. Why didn't it blow >>> out entire rows of windows without the pulverized concrete >>> since the windows all had the same force applied to them? > >> If what you think you see was caused by man-made explosives, >> all the glass would be gone from every window. > > That would depend on the size of the explosion, nut job. So, in your world, the strength of an explosion will determine which windows get blown out, and which don't? How so?
From: AllYou! on 6 Oct 2009 16:08 In news:hag4m7$aig$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Al Dykes wrote: > >> There was no man-made demolition at WTC on 9/11. > > So, all the videos showing exactly that are faked, eh? The videos don't show your fantasy of what actually happened. They show what actually happened.
From: AllYou! on 6 Oct 2009 16:20 In news:hag59i$cct$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > All the videos show massive I'd ask you to quantify "massive" in this context, but mass is a property of matter, or relates to a body of matter. An explosion is a physical process, and so cannot be massive in any respect. But what the hell. Please try to quantify "massive" as you've used it here. > synchronized explosions Excepting your fantasies about the WTC, please show me where using an explosion to cut thousands of structural steel members so precisely as to result in a so-called free fall of a sky scraper has ever resulted in pools of molten metal flowing like lava. > at the start > of the tower demolitions. The fact that the demolitions started > 1000 feet above street level with multiple synchronized > explosions That's a fantasy, not a fact. > is the reason you don't hear one "boom" before the > building starts to explode. So an explsion so massive as to cause the collapse of the WTC can't be heard 1,000 feet away? > Apparently, you're unaware of the > fact that sound waves travel *much* more slowly than light > waves. Can't say that comes as any surprise, given the level of > your insanity and your other insane, reality defying beliefs, > though.... >>> Do you actually believe that if supports on only one side of >>> a tall building are destroyed, the building will drop straight >>> down onto its own footprint? > >> Yes. > > Who do you "think" faked all the photos and videos showing > tall buildings topping sideways, and why do you "think" they > did it? So you claim that all tall buildings destroyed by controlled demoltions always fall sideways, but yet, you argue that the WTC towers did not. Hmmmmm. Do the math on that logic train, and see where it leads you. Your logic has already shown that you believe that the towers fell do to volcanic reuptions within them.
From: AllYou! on 6 Oct 2009 16:22 In news:hag604$do3$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Who do you "think" faked all the photos and videos showing > tall buildings topping sideways, and why do you "think" they > did it? If the controlled demolition of tall buildings always results in their falling sideways, and you agree that the WTC towers did not fall sideways, how can you argue that they were destroyed by controlled demolitions?
From: AllYou! on 6 Oct 2009 16:25
In news:hag4s9$aig$3(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > Al Dykes wrote: >>> 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? If the controlled demolition of tall buildings always results in their falling sideways, and you agree that the WTC towers did not fall sideways, how can you argue that they were destroyed by controlled demolitions? |