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: knews4u2chew on 9 Oct 2009 15:29 On Oct 9, 6:25 am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. > More snippage from Spook #3. > On your part, Hankie the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor. > And more Spook ad hominem. > 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!! Yup, we live on planet Bizarro where our government kills their own to make war for Empire and then blames a guy in a cave with a cell phone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNU http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
From: knews4u2chew on 9 Oct 2009 15:56 On Oct 8, 9:42 am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > In article <hal3n3$hf...(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, > > Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > >Iarnrod wrote: > >> On Oct 6, 1:09 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > > >> No video of the WTC shows anything remotely resembling a man-made > >> demolition. > > > We're not discussing the videos playing in your "mind", nut > >job. We're discussing the demolition videos of the towers and > >WTC7. Do try to keep up. You're acting like you're insane again. > > > The demolitions shown in the video below both display all > >the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of > >fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11 > > There is no BOOM heard on any video. There are no silent explosives. > Liar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw And Thermate doesn't have to explode to cut through steel like butter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M And even if there were not any videos/audio of explosions, eyewitnesses saw and heard them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNU > -- > Al Dykes (Spook)
From: AllYou! on 9 Oct 2009 17:05 In news:b6434b11-aae1-4600-b7ac-61696e2fe30a(a)2g2000prl.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Oct 8, 5:08 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> Spook #2 > wrote: >> Innews:hal4f6$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 Which is still irrelevant to the issue of whether or not steel has to melt to weaken. Also, there is no evidence whatsoever, nor even any plausible theory as to how melting steel could result in a demolition which is so precisely timed so as to cause any structure to fee fall. If there was, you'd be able to show where any controlled demolition has ever produced melted steel. It's never happened in the real world because it never could happen. > >> 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 Ad mominem noted.
From: AllYou! on 9 Oct 2009 22:21 Bottom line is that you have no plausible theory as to what happened. Even your limited theories as to the use if thermite makes no sense. For instance, hos is it that the use of thermite has neve been demonstrated to be feasible. sure, there are undocumented videos on utube which pretend to cut a tiny bit of steel, but why has no one ever taken a real, 200 pound per foot wide flange beam, put it in the verical position, and used thermite to show not only how it could cut through it horizontally, but to do so in such a precisly timed way which would be required to simulate free fall of an entire structure. The whole experiment would only take about $400 and a weekend to produce, and yet, nothing. Nadda! Why is that? and that's only one small part of a whole theory that you'd have to put together. So why has it never been done? Why have you never done it?
From: Al Dykes on 10 Oct 2009 01:10
In article <ef2af6ff-2af4-444c-9cf4-1df1ee8e72f6(a)d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Oct 9, 1:51=A0pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Oct 9, 1:56=A0pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Oct 8, 9:42=A0am, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: >> >> > > In article <hal3n3$hf...(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, >> >> > > Henry =A0<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. >> > As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction >exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosives: (and >some non-standard characteristics) >1. > >Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly >free-fall acceleration So what? >2. > >Improbable symmetry of debris distribution >3. "Improbable"? So what? > >Extremely rapid onset of destruction >4. It'c called gravity. > >Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes None of which think man-made demolition caused the collaps. You could prove me wrong by naming just one fireman. Make it your best case. Just one. Lets see what he says. Quality over quantity. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail |