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 8 Oct 2009 20:09 In news:hal5jo$khs$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> In news:haibou$999$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: >>> AllYou! wrote: >>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > >>>>> Who do you "think" faked all the photos and videos showing >>>>> tall buildings topping sideways, and why do you "think" they >>>>> did it? > >>>> If the controlled demolition of tall buildings always results >>>> in their falling sideways, >>> That's a very stupid thing to say. But from you, it's >>> expected. > >> Ad hominem noted. You seem very scared now. >> >>> Dykes said that even if supports on only one side of a tall >>> building are destroyed, the building will drop straight down >>> onto its own footprint. The videos proved him wrong about that, >>> too. What part of that is confusing you, and what makes you >>> "think" that demolitions can't be timed to cause buildings >>> to fall in any number of ways? > >> What makes you think I think that? > > Because you just said that the controlled demolition of tall > buildings always results in their falling sideways, and you're > the only person who said or implied such a stupid thing. Actually, I said that you said that. Try to keep up. :-) > >>>> and you agree that the WTC towers did not >>>> fall sideways, how can you argue that they were destroyed by >>>> controlled demolitions? > >>> I realize that even the most clear, basic logic confuses you, >>> but try to focus. If a demolition is executed *perfectly* with >>> precision timing, as in WTC7, it's possible to cause a building >>> to drop straight down through itself. If supports on only one >>> side are destroyed, the building will topple sideways. Again >>> let us know what part of this you find confusing. <chuckle> > >> Your point. > > There are several. Do you know which one has upset and confused > you? <chuckle> All the ones that run contrary to reality.
From: AllYou! on 8 Oct 2009 20:12 In news:hal5o6$khs$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > 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? Do you even now what the word 'disintegrate' means? BTW, here's the rest of my post that you were to afraid to address....... 2) None of that matters to the issue of whether or not steel weakens as it is heated. You keep insisting that steel has to melt to fail, and that's as ridiculous as most of your other claims about the real world. > 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. 2) Take a chain, put it under a tensile load, then heat it. At some point, even though it's gradually weakening, it will gradually weaken to the point where it will fail, and when that happens, it will fail catastrophically in that the chain will very suddenly break, and probably whip around violently. IOW, gradual weakling doesn't mean gradual failure, except, of course, to the ignorant. > They would have shown gradual, isolated, and asymmetric bending > or sagging in the areas of extreme heat. BINGO! That's exactly what happened to the lateral steel trusses. That gradual sagging steadily put significant lateral loads on the remaining steel columns which were already significantly stressed because they were carrying the loads of the columns that had been destroyed, and when they could no longer take that lateral load, they buckled inwardly, as is proven by the videos, and the rest is history. > There a reason you > conspiracy theorists can't cite even *one* example of a steel > framed high rise that collapsed due to fire.... Why don't you then explain why it is that all major building codes require the structural steel to be fireproofed? I've asked you that question dozens of times now, and you've always ignored it. > Why do you think WTC7's entire hurricane, earthquake, and fire > resistant steel frame suddenly dropped at free fall speed? It did not.
From: knews4u2chew on 8 Oct 2009 23:03 On Oct 8, 5:08 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> Spook #2 wrote: > Innews:hal4f6$iql$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, > Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > > > > > AllYou! Spook #2 wrote: > >> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: > >>> AllYou! Spook #2 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.... > Or much lower... http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html > >>>> 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. > Everything true is irrelevant to paid liars It melted from thermate. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM > 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? > Yup, like the kind in your head > > 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. > http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm > <Gradually heated steel loses its strength gradually. > > You're finally catching on. > Yup, he's catching on to your disinfo tactics. http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html > > 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. :-) What is it about Lying Spooks that they think everyone will eat up their swill? http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNU
From: Henry on 9 Oct 2009 08:59 knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com wrote: > "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> Spook #2 wrote: >> Innews:hal4f6$iql$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry >> <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: >>> AllYou! Spook #2 wrote: >>>> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: >>>>> AllYou! Spook #2 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.... > Or much lower... http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html >>>>>> 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. > Everything true is irrelevant to paid liars > It melted from thermate. > http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM >> 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? > Yup, like the kind in your head >>> 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. > http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm >> <Gradually heated steel loses its strength gradually. >> You're finally catching on. > Yup, he's catching on to your disinfo tactics. > http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html >>> 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. :-) > What is it about Lying Spooks that they think everyone will eat up > their swill? They assume that others are as simple minded, gullible, and clueless as themselves - misguided projection. > http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNU -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Iarnrod on 9 Oct 2009 09:25
On Oct 9, 6:59 am, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > What is it about Lying Spooks that they think everyone will eat up > > their swill? > > They assume that others are as simple minded, gullible, and clueless > as themselves - misguided projection. On your part, Hankie the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor. Say, are you finished with that post yet that explains how your gravity-defying thermite or cartoon magic silent and invisible explosives work on Planet Bizarro? <snicker> Be sure to alert us to that one!! |