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: Gunner Asch on 6 Oct 2009 21:37 On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:28:04 -0400, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> >> LOL! Well, you've finally taken to selective snipping, which is the >> final refuge of the person who knows they have lost the debate. The >> obvious flaw in your comment is that you think steel has to heat to >> 2500 degrees before it weakens. > > No, it has to be heated to over 2500 degrees before it melts, a I notice you keep avoiding "weakens" and keep going straight to "melts" Why is that? Gunner Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
From: Iarnrod on 6 Oct 2009 21:39 On Oct 6, 1:09 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(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? No video of the WTC shows anything remotely resembling a man-made demolition. Starting with the TOTAL absence of any explosives or your magic gravity defying thermite.
From: Iarnrod on 6 Oct 2009 21:40 On Oct 6, 1:20 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Al Dykes wrote: > > Henry <9-11tr...(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. Really? How come no kkkooker has ever posted one? You be the first. Post one video that shows this, Hankie.
From: AllYou! on 6 Oct 2009 22:22 In news:hag27l$78l$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> In news:hafvgm$24k$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> AllYou! wrote: >>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>>>> PV wrote: >>>>>> Also, all tornadoes are actually freight trains. >>>>> Of course they are, kooker. And, of course, a 1500 degree >>>>> fire can heat steel to well over 2500 degrees, >>>> Again, you seem to enjoy displaying your ignorace. >>> >>> Wow, another nut job who "thinks" you can heat steel to >>> over 2500 degrees by exposing it to 1500 degree heat. >>> Only on usenut..... >> >> LOL! Well, you've finally taken to selective snipping, which >> is the final refuge of the person who knows they have lost the >> debate. The obvious flaw in your comment is that you think >> steel has to heat to 2500 degrees before it weakens. > > No, it has to be heated to over 2500 degrees before it melts, But it weakens enough to fail under load much, much sooner than before it melts. > and all but the most deluded nut jobs are aware of the molten > metal and satellite imagery showing extremely high temperatures. Despite your ad hominems, which you have freely admitted are the sign of a whacko, there is no claim, not even one, that any molten 'stuff' which some people say - that they heard other people say - that they saw was molten steel. Please provide one quote from someone who was ever in a position to know the difference between molten stuff, and molten steel, to know for a fact that it was molten steel. Based upon the 'evidence' that you've posted here, though, it seems more likely to me that the molten stuff that you think that some people claim to have heard other people say was molten metal was more probably lava. After all, you've said that people say that it flowed like lava, and you've also posted links to sites which claim that the dust clouds looked just like those produced by volcanic eruptions. How much more evidence do you need that the towers were brought down by volcanoes? > Do try to keep up.... You too. The 'mountain' of evidence is clear that the towers were brought down by volcanoes.
From: Henry on 7 Oct 2009 11:23
AllYou! wrote: > 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, That's a very stupid thing to say. But from you, it's expected. Dykes said that even if supports on only one side of a tall building are destroyed, the building will drop straight down onto its own footprint. The videos proved him wrong about that, too. What part of that is confusing you, and what makes you "think" that demolitions can't be timed to cause buildings to fall in any number of ways? > and you agree that the WTC towers did not > fall sideways, how can you argue that they were destroyed by > controlled demolitions? I realize that even the most clear, basic logic confuses you, but try to focus. If a demolition is executed *perfectly* with precision timing, as in WTC7, it's possible to cause a building to drop straight down through itself. If supports on only one side are destroyed, the building will topple sideways. Again let us know what part of this you find confusing. <chuckle> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org |