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 7 Oct 2009 11:37 On Oct 7, 9:23 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > AllYou! wrote: > > Henry <9-11tr...(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. Hankie the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor, nothing you say is true. You first have to come to grips with the PROVEN FACT that the "theory" you "think" is true is actually contradicted by all the evidence an is also physically impossible. Until you do that, and can explain how your bizarro world could exist, no one can take anything you say seriously.
From: Henry on 7 Oct 2009 14:49 Iarnrod wrote: > On Oct 6, 11:10 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Apparently, you're not sure >> what you're arguing about, or what it is about Kevin Ryan's >> excellent research that's got your panties all wadded up, eh >> kooker? > Ryan has been completely debunked. But for some reason (you're helpless and deluded nut case) you can't quote even one misleading or inaccurate claim in any of his papers. Thanks for proving my point again, nut job... <chuckle> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Gunner Asch on 7 Oct 2009 15:40 On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:53:34 -0400, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > >> Why is that? > > Because it did melt, and if it had gradually weakened, the >buildings wouldn't have suddenly exploded and disintegrated. Odd..each floor was supported by its outside edges. There were NO center supports for each floor. So when the supports finally got hot enough to bend..the floor dropped on top of the floor below it, doubling its weight. This caused that floor to blow out its supports and both then dropped to the floor below them..tripling its weight..which instantly blew out its supports which crashed onto the floor below..quadrupling its weight.... and so on and so forth. Its evident that yourknowledge of materials and metals and so forth is so scanty and minute that I frankly cannot understand how you can even tie your shoes without shearng the laces. GUNNER'S PRAYER: "God grant me the serenity to accept the people that don't need to get shot, the courage to shoot the people that need shooting and the wisdom to know the difference. And if need be, the skill to get it done before I have to reload." 0
From: Iarnrod on 7 Oct 2009 15:51 On Oct 7, 12:49 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Iarnrod wrote: > > On Oct 6, 11:10 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >> Apparently, you're not sure > >> what you're arguing about, or what it is about Kevin Ryan's > >> excellent research that's got your panties all wadded up, eh > >> kooker? > > Ryan has been completely debunked. > > But for some reason (you're helpless and deluded nut case) > you can't quote even one misleading or inaccurate claim > in any of his papers. <snicker> Quite the contrary, it is YOU, Hankie the Self Admitted Fired Janitor, who cannot quote even one ACCURATE claim in any of his papers!!
From: AllYou! on 7 Oct 2009 18:53
In news:haibou$999$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > 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. Ad hominem noted. You seem very scared now. > 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? What makes you think I think that? > >> 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, Very scared indeed. > 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> Your point. > > > > > -- > > http://911research.wtc7.net > http://www.journalof911studies.com/ > http://www.ae911truth.org |