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: Henry on 8 Oct 2009 12:58 AllYou! wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >> Gunner Asch wrote: >>> I notice you keep avoiding "weakens" and keep going straight to >>> "melts" Why is that? >> Because it did melt, and if it had gradually weakened, the >> buildings wouldn't have suddenly exploded and disintegrated. > 1) They did not explode, and as the debris field proves, they > certainly did not disintegrate. Your conspiracy kook lies and delusions certainly are stupid, blatant, and easily exposed. Why do you refuse to get informed? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=channel_page -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Iarnrod on 8 Oct 2009 15:35 On Oct 8, 10:23 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > Iarnrod wrote: > > On Oct 6, 1:09 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > > No video of the WTC shows anything remotely resembling a man-made > > demolition. > > We're not discussing the videos playing in your "mind", nut > job. We're discussing the demolition videos of the towers and > WTC7. How come you haven't posted any that show anything remotely like what you claim, Fired Janitor? > The demolitions shown in the video below both display all > the characteristics of controlled demolition, Nope, none of them does. Not a single characteristic exclusive to controlled demolition is shown in any video -- starting with the total absence of any explosions. Sorry, KKKooker Hankie. You'll have to find something else to be wrong about now! <chuckle>
From: Iarnrod on 8 Oct 2009 15:36 On Oct 8, 10:36 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > AllYou! wrote: > > Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > >> AllYou! wrote: > >>> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > >>>> 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. > > But it did melt, You're the only one on the planet who "thinks" so, Hankie the Self- Admitted Fired Janitor. Why would that be? Chemically induced?
From: Henry on 8 Oct 2009 15:39 Al Dykes wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Let us know if you dispute or don't understand any of what is >> written in Kevin Ryan's paper below. >> Squibs everywhere, but especially at the 10 and >> 20 second marks: <links restored because we can't afford to let radical freedom, truth, justice and America hating extremists or terrorists hide the truth> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjfoXbyffso&feature=related http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf > Dust and air. Massive, house sized, multiple, synchronized explosions and pulverized concrete. You're either deluded and insane, or you just lie a lot. Either way, thanks for proving my point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=channel_page -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: AllYou! on 8 Oct 2009 20:08
In news:hal4f6$iql$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: > >>>>> 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. > > But it did melt, That's irrelevant to the issue of whether of not steel has to melt in order to weaken. Besides, all you've shown so far is that someone said something about something that looked lied molten metal. You do now that not all metal is steel right? > and instead of failing gradually, it failed > instantly. Yes, all the steel failed instantly. Some, because it was cut by the planes, and some because it was gradually heated. <Gradually heated steel loses its strength gradually. You're finally catching on. > What is it about nut jobs that prevents them from comprehending > basic facts, logic, and reality? Rhetorical, BTW - look it up. You're the only one who previously disputed this fact. Try to keep up. :-) |